Bull Bars Under Threat

[AJ120 Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close AJ120]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

All the different views are nothing if not interesting. For those of you who are trying to promote the "lets fight the middle ground argument" because we cant win, consider a couple of things.

Two of the biggest factors in road fatalities and injuries, I don't have exact figures but they exceed bullbar issues many times over, are

1. speed
2. Alcohol

Despite speed probably being the singlest biggest road safety issue, the motoring industry has succesfully managed to continue selling cars and bikes that can exceed the speed limit in Australia by huge amounts. If i had a few million to spare i could import a Bugati Veyron that can do over 400kms/hr and drive it legally on the road :shock: . I could go to my local Holden dealer tomorrow and buy a dunnydore that will pass 200kms'hr with ease. How can you possibly justify a car that does those speeds? but the industry does.

Alcohol, no doubt whatsoever that this is a contributing factor in crashes and any number of studies will back this up. Yet despite this the alcohol industry has managed to maintain a system where people can legally consume alcohol and then drive, at a low level addmitedly but with a drug that alters your perceptions and your reaction non the less.

Getting away from vehicles, Smoking! despite overwhelming evidence of the amount of people killing themselves and others through lighting up has the government banned smoking?

So despite no hard data about the impacts of bullbars and the actual amount of harm they cause balanced against the good they do, Other than the old headbut the bullbar as opposed to the plastic bumber and see which one hurts more :lol: :lol: :lol: We should throw in the towel and accept the new rules based on :?:

If the motoring, alcohol and tobacco industries can win thier battles; the 4Wdriving public and the aftermarket manufacturers should win their argument with their hands tied behind their backs.


Cheers Andrew

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Good points Andrew,

If the motoring, alcohol and tobacco industries can win thier battles; the 4Wdriving public and the aftermarket manufacturers should win their argument with their hands tied behind their backs.

Except they didn't win their battles. Yes, you can buy a Veyron, but you cannot legally drive it above the speed limit. On the other hand, I'm not sure you can actually buy a car that won't break the speed limit? It's not that long ago, you could drive your car on the open road at virtually any speed as long as you could prove you were driving safely; Alcohol has strict legal limits in the blood of drivers that were not there in the past; tobacco is controlled though advertising, labelling and taxing it through the roof.

These battles were lost because to do nothing was not in the public interest, and the evidence supporting greater control and regulation was undeniable. I agree that the relative impact of the issues you mention is far higher than pedestrian safety from Bull bars.

Michael

[lionel Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close lionel]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

The paper is definitely interesting reading. Appendix 11 deals with "Vehicle Front Protection Systems" of bullbars. The recommendation would be to require Passenger Vehicles and Vans to comply with the EEC directive (essentially deformable bars only - eg smartbar, or google Endura Front Protection System for another example). It also recommends that vehicles designed for primarily offroad use should be exempted from the VFPS compliance requirement, but voluntary compliance and further education of VFPS users be encouraged.

Also interesting to note:

VFPS serves three genuine purposes, protection against animal strikes, mounting of winches for recovery of stranded vehicles and providing mounting points for additional equipment such as lights and aerials.

• to protect against parking collisions,
• to make the vehicle more visually attractive; and
• to allow more aggressive driving in peak hours.
These responses represented the other end of the spectrum of reasons for fitting a VFPS, particularly in an urban environment – the technically non-essential ones.

My suggestion would be if you want to continue to fit a steel or alloy bar to your 4wd, you need to send a public submission to the Paper (rather than signing the AAAA petition which was treated fairly dismissively by the Paper) supporting the recommendation of Option 6 Sub option B (Basically require pedestrian friendly ADR compliance (option 6) but exempt bull bars fitted to 4x4 utilities and 4wd's Sub option B)

Finally there were some earlier questions about the effectiveness of bars against animal strike vs the number of pedestrians killed. The Paper cites the ATSB study (2000) which estimated 9 fatalities a year were prevented by the fitment of the VFPS. The same study noted that there were 90 fatalities (30 pedestrians, 10 cyclists and 50 vehicle occupants (side impact)) involving vehicles fitted with VFPS, the number of fatalities attributable to the VFPS were somewhere between 0 and 90.

My own conclusions from the data in the paragraph above:
- Side impact vehicle occupants are also potential beneficiaries
- Compared to 232 pedestrians and 31 motor cyclists killed in total (over 2000 to 2009 - average 24) the 40 killed between (1990 and 1997) average 5 represents about 21% (and yes the data sets are different, but comparative data isn't available).
- The Paper shows the AAAA data which gives a fitment rate of about 24%, well within the accuracy of the data available, there is not enough any evidence to suggest either way. As a cautionary note, the ATSB study points out that the bullbar fitment data was incomplete, meaning that the 21% is the minimum, and the actual value may be higher.

I don't think there is a silver bullet that will prove the argument either way. The lab tests suggest the steel & aluminium bars do more (or significantly more) damage than just the vehicle or the deformable bar. The real world stats suggest that there is no increase associated with the fitment of the bar (although based on incomplete data).

To me, the biggest shock was the fitment rate of 24%, I'm genuinely surprised it's that high. For instance, they quote 53% of SUV's. Now most SUV's sold are softroaders Rav4s, Territories, Craptivas etc and I'd say (gut instinct) maybe 10% have a nudge bar? This means the fitment rate amongst other SUV's would need to be close to 100% in order to produce an average of 53%. Now I'd say it's probably closer to 30-50% amongst these vehicles.

If i drive my bullbar equiped 4WD to the city how do the police know what is in transit and what is a permanent city dweller?
Once again with no data on how many bullbars are on vehicles that never leave the city limits how can this be an argument? No doubt there are a few but i would think most bullbar equiped vehicles would head out on the open road once in a while.

AJ, the answer to the first part is easily, the WA police now have car mounted cameras which scan the number plates of the vehicles surrounding them. Pulls up the database of the current rego status of the vehicle (we don't have rego stickers anymore) and any outstanding offenses for the owner. It could easily show the address, or if the vehicle is scanned is a 4wd show that it "lives" in an approved area. For those of us condemmed to live in the city, a permit (purchased for an annual fee to discourage "frivolous" use... :roll: ) status could be recorded to allow it when necessary.

And unfortunately, there isn't the data to answer the second part, but I'd say the majority of the risk exposure is accumulated by those who live (or work) outside the major metropolitan centres.

[tassie tiger Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close tassie tiger]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

So despite no hard data about the impacts of bullbars and the actual amount of harm they cause balanced against the good they do, Other than the old headbut the bullbar as opposed to the plastic bumber and see which one hurts more :lol: :lol: :lol: We should throw in the towel and accept the new rules based on :?:

If the motoring, alcohol and tobacco industries can win thier battles; the 4Wdriving public and the aftermarket manufacturers should win their argument with their hands tied behind their backs.


Cheers Andrew

HI Andrew,

There is hard data and I have already linked to it. This is the problem that the industry faces. If I can show it then the very clever advisers to govt can.

While you may chuckle at the simplistic argument I put about headbutting the bullbar the reality is that this is unarguable. Of course they do more damage and to argue they dont does not make sense. If the argument does not make sense then you will lose the argument. (unless you can explain it) Forget the truth. Forget statistics. The decision will come down to perceptions.

What is the perception with the population who vote for the govt? If you posted a poll with the question - "Do bullbars increase the incidence of death to pedestrians" the yes vote would win in a landslide. (whether true or not)

The next poll - "Do you support reducing the impact of vehicle bullbars upon pedestrians?" Once again a landslide.

The questions are not fair or balanced but how they will be argued.

I think its obvious that I support changes to frontal protection of vehicles. This is based upon my personal experiences. It doesnt make me anti 4wd. Just not supportive of one particular accessory. (a bit like gun control - as a hunter I support the reduction in automatic weapons because I think they are not sporting - doesnt make me anti gun or anti hunting) But I think there should be more thought put into it that just adopting a standard from overseas without concessions.

So for me the middle ground makes sense and its not throwing in the towel. The manufacturers CAN meet the standard but they just dont want to. And seeing as the smart bar already exists, and will easily meet the standard with a reskin, I think the industry is going to lose. (except for smartbar of course).

I still cant get my head around how the industry argues this and wins. The govt simply says here is a product (smartbar) that can meet the standard (with mods) and yours doesnt. Sorry.

Smartbar sales soar - the rest of the industry follows suit.

I KNOW the manufacturers can build a bullbar that meets the standard AND achieves what some 4wds genuinely require. Best of both worlds. But maybe it just comes down to a certain image that we crave, not reality. 8)

[Guest Close max_rocktansky]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Well with the threat of a stray 50 cal bullet taking my head off... I want to hear some facts on a couple of points -

1. So what is the plan here, will the proposed changes effect any vehicle CURRENTLY not fitted with a bullbar and wants to fit one ?

2. Will it mean a blanket, take them ALL OFF or no rego result country wide ?

3. Will it mean ALL bars are outlawed, except for a few approved plastic rubbish type bars ?



Just wanted to walk into no mans land and ask some bloody practical questions and cut thru the bullshit...

[Corigator Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Corigator]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Well I had a brief look at "the Paper".

Its interesting how they have skewed the stats.

It seems that they have included all SUV's and light commercial vehicles and forward control vans (whatever they are) in the 4wd stats.
What they don't show is what percentage of the total fleet this would be.

Given that while 17% are involved in single vehicle accidents, it seems that at only 11% of pedestrian deaths, they are the least offensive vehicles to pedestrians.

What is the real agenda here. - Probably some green phobia being allowed to skew the stats.

As a foot note, I don't have a bullbar, so I feel reasonably unbiased, but get upset at government trying to pass more and more legislation that just restricts our freedom without any real evidence base.

Edit:
I noticed that tables don't work, so here is a graphic




Cheers,

Greg

[AJ120 Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close AJ120]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Tassietiger wrote
There is hard data and I have already linked to it. This is the problem that the industry faces. If I can show it then the very clever advisers to govt can.

The hard data you linked to is only about the fact that bullbars will cause more harm in a collision, I don't think anybody is arguing this point! It doesnt as far as i could see have and hard data on how many bullbars actually cause injuries and fatalities in the real world, and therefore we can't tell whether changing the standards will have the desired result. In fact i have copied the text below from the report you linked to.

The extent to which bull bars are involved in pedestrian collisions and injury is not clear from
readily available data. In 1996, the Federal Office of Road Safety estimated that bull bars
were involved in 12% of fatal pedestrian collisions but may be involved in as many as 20%

(FORS, 1996), although it is not clear how the latter estimate was arrived at, nor whether
these figures represent an increased risk of death due to the presence of the bull bar. More
recently Attewell and Glase (2000) used Australian crash data to try and estimate the effect
of bull bars on fatality statistics. They were not able to draw firm conclusions due to the
incompleteness on the bull bar status of vehicles in their fatality database. Furthermore,
there were (and are) few data on bull bar fitment rates, and that made it difficult to estimate
risks associated with bull bar fitment.

So to make it clear, I believe at the very least we should be arguing to get some real and meaningful data on exactly how many bullbars are involved in accidents and how many resulted in worse injuries because of the bullbar.
what if the statistics showed that bullbars are underrepresented in pedestrian fatalities? I can think of reasons that this could be possible, the fact is we dont know.
Also TT, don’t for one second think that the people lobbying to ban bullbars aren’t the exact same people that will be lobbying to lock 4Wdrives out of the bush. Then they won’t need to ban your front propshaft cause you won’t have anywhere to use it. IMO.

Cheers Andrew

[lionel Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close lionel]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Well with the threat of a stray 50 cal bullet taking my head off... I want to hear some facts on a couple of points -

1. So what is the plan here, will the proposed changes effect any vehicle CURRENTLY not fitted with a bullbar and wants to fit one ?

2. Will it mean a blanket, take them ALL OFF or no rego result country wide ?

3. Will it mean ALL bars are outlawed, except for a few approved plastic rubbish type bars ?



Just wanted to walk into no mans land and ask some bloody practical questions and cut thru the bullshit...

1. The proposal is to use an ADR, it would affect vehicles manufactured after a certain date (2013 - 2018) and would require the vehicle (without bar) to meet the standard

2. No it would not. Accessories are regulated under state law (registration) and it would be the actions of the state govt separately to enforce a blanket ban. Past history suggests they would let them die a natural death, but might ban fitment of new bars to existing vehicles.

3. There are two sub proposals,
a) is to require all bars fitted to light vehicles (car/4wd/Van/Ute) to meet the standard (ie plastic bars or none)
b) is to allow alloy/steel bars to be fitted to vehicles traveling in rural/regional/remote areas to meet one of three genuine needs (animal strike, accessory mounting, vehicle recovery). The paper discussed multiple ways of achieving this and recommended that it be done by vehicle type (4wd's and 4x4 utes) rather than address of the owner.

The paper currently recomends option b (allow 4wd's and 4x4 utes to fit alloy/steel bars), with an education campaign targeted at discouraging urban based vehicles from fitting alloy or steel bars.

Or the short version:

1. No
2. No
3. No
:lol:

[photoprado Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close photoprado]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

It seems that they have included all SUV's and light commercial vehicles and forward control vans (whatever they are) in the 4wd stats.
What they don't show is what percentage of the total fleet this would be.

Forward control is the vans - HiAce and such. Hard to get any useful data from the ABS (they include trucks and buses in the numbers):

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected] ... num=&view=

2006: Cars: 11,230,000
2006: Light commercial vehicles, trucks, non-freight carrying trucks and buses: 2,665,000

There's a lot of vans on the road...

I'm guessing, but I suspect they have the data on 4WD numbers somewhere, whether we can get at it as members of the public is another matter.

[edit: Found it in the the new registration numbers]:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] ... enDocument
(Scroll down to the section "New motor vehicle sales by type of vehicle by month ") SUV Registrations are running a bit over 20% of all new registrations, and about 40% of Passenger Vehicles. Still haven't found the statistic for what is actually on the road, maybe there are no longer term records for 'SUV's'?

Michael

[yowie Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close yowie]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Yesterday, I looked at a small ambulance vehicle fitted with a smart bar and a steel winch. The plastic on the smart bar is bloody hard, and it will hurt if you are hit by it. It does not matter if it deforms upon pedestrian impact, it is still going to f@#^&*#@ hurt, and the steel winch will still hurt.

Remember your schooling: Force = Mass x Acceleration: regardless of bars fitted or not, any vehicle is going to hurt a pedestrian.

Yowie.

[Corigator Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Corigator]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

There's a lot of vans on the road...

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] ... enDocument
(Scroll down to the section "New motor vehicle sales by type of vehicle by month ") SUV Registrations are running a bit over 20% of all new registrations, and about 40% of Passenger Vehicles. Still haven't found the statistic for what is actually on the road, maybe there are no longer term records for 'SUV's'?

Michael

So that could mean more than 20% of vehicles (because the data includes light commercial vehicles and forward control vans as well) are only causing 11% of the deaths.

Where is their arguement?

[tassie tiger Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close tassie tiger]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Well with the threat of a stray 50 cal bullet taking my head off... I want to hear some facts on a couple of points -

1. So what is the plan here, will the proposed changes effect any vehicle CURRENTLY not fitted with a bullbar and wants to fit one ?

2. Will it mean a blanket, take them ALL OFF or no rego result country wide ?

3. Will it mean ALL bars are outlawed, except for a few approved plastic rubbish type bars ?



Just wanted to walk into no mans land and ask some bloody practical questions and cut thru the bullshit...

HI Max

1. NO - IT will be a design rule change so will not, cannot effect vehicles already registered. So it would be ONLY new models. A bit like airbags - if they didnt have them you dont need to fit them. If you were to let the rego lapse you may have troubles. Maybe.

2. NO - None will be taken off.

3. NO - New bars will be required to meet the standards. The standards deal with impact on pedestrians. Bullbars will definitely become softer IMO. Anywhere there is a hard angle it will need to have some sort of deformable cushion or shell to absorb the impact.

[Matty80 Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Matty80]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

ARB notice: Bull Bars under threat

ABC News article from NT - at least the NT Government has a common sense approach.

Just completed filling out the survey from ARB and other associated 4WD Groups, worth doing if we want to have any chance of KEEPING our faithful and required accessories attached to our vehicles!!!

Added "Increased approach angles" in the reasons for why I fitted a bullbar, under the "other" section, ticked every box - they all make sense and they are all reasons why I fitted the bullbar in the first place...

[iantz Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close iantz]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

If what eventuatues is that bullbars can only be fitted to 4x4 and 4x4 utility vehicles, then there is no issue. I personally don't see the need for commodores etc to have bars fitted (and I've seen quite a few). I also don't think SUVs (AWDs) should be permitted to carry a bullbar. It just isn't necessary. So Klugers etc would be out. If you want the protection, and be allowed to have a bull bar, then buy a real 4x4. This is assuming that they go with the plan to limit them to vehicle types. Of course, the rural / metro use restriction would be impossible to police and totally stupid. Am I supposed to not have a bull bar metro, but then when I go touring for a few weeks, get my bullbar fitted, and subsequently removed after??? It just won't work.

[Callo Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Callo]

Re: Bull Bars Under Threat

Last week I received an email from ARB seeking me to fill in a survey on this matter. I must be on their email list.
I completed the survey and sent it off.
The ARB web site has a link to the survey at http://www.arb.com.au/ with a tab titled Bull Bars Under Threat - Have your say.
I suggest it is worth a look and you decide if you want to complete it.
Every little bit helps albeit from a commercial point of view.
Callo